▲ 1754 ▼ I'm not asking to be rich. (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/workreform@lemmy.world 337 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Growth of what? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wazzupdog@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) If I had to guess, the growth of the 1%'s payroll. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Perhaps, but then why care about it at all? I hate people thinking that the bourgeoisie hoarding money is somehow going to result in surplus production to the benefit of all. The matter of fact is that it is detrimental to "the economy" for them to keep the proles so poor that they cannot even buy the goods and services they are producing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DrMorose@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But that has been the theory being toted by a certain percentage of people for the past 40 years. The whole trickle down economics. That is hard thing to get out of your head since it has been there for so long. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago You are of course right, which is what irks me. It is just that the idea is wrong doubly so. First it assumes we need to continue the current economic paradigm. Further, even following this assumption, trickle up economics would actually have a positive impact on the economy as is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wazzupdog@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) If I had to guess, the growth of the 1%'s payroll. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Perhaps, but then why care about it at all? I hate people thinking that the bourgeoisie hoarding money is somehow going to result in surplus production to the benefit of all. The matter of fact is that it is detrimental to "the economy" for them to keep the proles so poor that they cannot even buy the goods and services they are producing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DrMorose@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But that has been the theory being toted by a certain percentage of people for the past 40 years. The whole trickle down economics. That is hard thing to get out of your head since it has been there for so long. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago You are of course right, which is what irks me. It is just that the idea is wrong doubly so. First it assumes we need to continue the current economic paradigm. Further, even following this assumption, trickle up economics would actually have a positive impact on the economy as is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Perhaps, but then why care about it at all? I hate people thinking that the bourgeoisie hoarding money is somehow going to result in surplus production to the benefit of all. The matter of fact is that it is detrimental to "the economy" for them to keep the proles so poor that they cannot even buy the goods and services they are producing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DrMorose@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But that has been the theory being toted by a certain percentage of people for the past 40 years. The whole trickle down economics. That is hard thing to get out of your head since it has been there for so long. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago You are of course right, which is what irks me. It is just that the idea is wrong doubly so. First it assumes we need to continue the current economic paradigm. Further, even following this assumption, trickle up economics would actually have a positive impact on the economy as is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DrMorose@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But that has been the theory being toted by a certain percentage of people for the past 40 years. The whole trickle down economics. That is hard thing to get out of your head since it has been there for so long. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago You are of course right, which is what irks me. It is just that the idea is wrong doubly so. First it assumes we need to continue the current economic paradigm. Further, even following this assumption, trickle up economics would actually have a positive impact on the economy as is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago You are of course right, which is what irks me. It is just that the idea is wrong doubly so. First it assumes we need to continue the current economic paradigm. Further, even following this assumption, trickle up economics would actually have a positive impact on the economy as is. permalink fedilink source parent
